M GOWTHAMCHAND Vs. KEMPAIAH THAMMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 15-11-1983, passed on issue No. 2 and 3 in O.S. No. 119/1981 by the CivilJudge, Mandya.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are as follows: That the plaintiff filed a suit contending that the defendant as a manager of the joint family, for legal necessity and to install a huller and floor mill in his village borrowed a sum of Rs. 10.000/- from the plaintiff on the mortgage security of the schedule house agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of Rs. 125/- permensum and he executed a registered simple mortgage deed dated 1-2-1974. As the defendants did not re-pay the payments on repeated request, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 20.000/- including interest etc.

(3.) The defendant filed written statement contending inter alia that suit is barred Suit recitals are not true and they are not due to pay Rs. 20,000/- and contended that the plaintiff and his father Manickchand Ranka are members of the joint family. The plaintiff is a money lender doing business of money lending as per the Provisions of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act. That the shop is running in the name of the Manickchand Ranka. The plaintiff and his father are doing joint family business in the said name, in addition to money lending business they are doing the business of pawn broke also. The shop is situated at Maddur and that the suit transaction relates to the joint family business. He also contended that the plaintiff even though he is a money lender has not complied with the Provisions of Money Lending Act and he has not given the statement to the defendant within 30 days from the date of the loan. He has not also given any pass book as required under Section 21 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act and under the Provisions of Section 21(2) of the Money Lenders Act. Since the plaintiff has not complied with the Provisions of Section 20 and 21 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act and that the interest and court costs has to be disallowed under Section 24 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act. The defendant also contended that he has paid in all Rs. 7.200/- to the plaintiff and that the interest and costs may be disallowed under Section 24 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act for non-compliance by the plaintiff the provisions of Section 20 and 21 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act and the suit be decreed for a sum of Rs. 10.000/- only.